References
- 1Berker, T. (2023a). Infrastructures by the users for users: Motivations, constraints, and consequences of user-driven infrastructuring of mobile phones. New Media & Society, May, 14614448231166896. 10.1177/14614448231166896
- 2Berker, T. (2023b). Negotiating research norms between academic and industrial research—The case of a research centre on zero emission buildings in Norway. Nordic Architectural Research, 35(2).
http://arkitekturforskning.net/na/article/view/1303 - 3Berker, T., Henriksen, H., Sutcliffe, T. E., & Woods, R. (2024). A sustainable campus for an uncertain future. Two cases of infrastructural transformation at Norway’s largest university. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 25(6). 10.1108/IJSHE-01-2023-0027
- 4Berker, T., & Kvellheim, A. K. (2018). Boundary objects as facilitators in sustainable building research. Science and Public Policy, 45(2), 202–210. 10.1093/scipol/scx057
- 5Berker, T., & Woods, R. (2020). Identifying and addressing reverse salients in infrastructural change. The case of a small zero emission campus in southern Norway. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 21(7), 1625–1640. 10.1108/IJSHE-12-2019-0354
- 6Callon, M., & Law, J. (2005). On qualculation, agency, and otherness. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 23(5), 717–733. 10.1068/d343t
- 7Castán Broto, V., Glendinning, S., Dewberry, E., Walsh, C., & Powell, M. (2014). What can we learn about transitions for sustainability from infrastructure shocks? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 84(May), 186–196. 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.002
- 8Clauß, J., Stinner, S., Sartori, I., & Georges, L. (2019). Predictive rule-based control to activate the energy flexibility of Norwegian residential buildings: Case of an air-source heat pump and direct electric heating. Applied Energy, 237(March), 500–518. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.12.074
- 9Geels, F. W. (2014). Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: Introducing politics and power into the multi-level perspective. Theory, Culture & Society, 31(5), 21–40. 10.1177/0263276414531627
- 10Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795. 10.2307/2095325
- 11Gohari, S., & Larssæther, S. (2019). Sustainable energy planning as a co-creative governance challenge. Lessons from the Zero Village Bergen. International Journal of Sustainable Energy Planning and Management, 24(October). 10.5278/ijsepm.3353
- 12Grisot, M., & Vassilakopoulou, P. (2017). Re-infrastructuring for ehealth: Dealing with turns in infrastructure development. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 26(1), 7–31. 10.1007/s10606-017-9264-2
- 13Gunnarsson, B.-L. (2009). Professional discourse. A & C Black.
- 14Heiskanen, E., Johnson, M., Robinson, S., Vadovics, E., & Saastamoinen, M. (2010). Low-carbon communities as a context for individual behavioural change. Energy Policy, 38(12), 7586–7595. 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.07.002
- 15Irimiea, S. B. (2017). Professional discourse as social practice. European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 3(4), 108–119. 10.26417/ejis.v9i1.p108-119
- 16Janda, K. B., & Topouzi, M. (2015). Telling tales: Using stories to remake energy policy. Building Research & Information, 43(4), 516–533. 10.1080/09613218.2015.1020217
- 17Karasti, H., & Blomberg, J. (2018). Studying infrastructuring ethnographically. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 27(2), 233–265. 10.1007/s10606-017-9296-7
- 18Karasti, H., & Syrjänen, A.-L. (2004). Artful infrastructuring in two cases of community PD. In Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Participatory Design: Artful Integration: Interweaving Media, Materials and Practices—Volume 1 (pp. 20–30).
Association for Computing Machinery . 10.1145/1011870.1011874 - 19Kvellheim, A. K. (2017). The power of buildings in climate change mitigation: The case of Norway. Energy Policy, 110(November), 653–661. 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.08.037
- 20Larkin, B. (2013). The politics and poetics of infrastructure. Annual Review of Anthropology, 42(1), 327–343. 10.1146/annurev-anthro-092412-155522
- 21Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., & Thissen, W. (2010). Introduction to the special section: Infrastructures and transitions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(8), 1195–1202. 10.1016/j.techfore.2010.06.001
- 22Lund, K. M., Lausselet, C., & Brattebø, H. (2019). LCA of the zero emission neighbourhood Ydalir. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 352(1),
012009 . 10.1088/1755-1315/352/1/012009 - 23Lützkendorf, T., & Frischknecht, R. (2020). (Net-) zero-emission buildings: A typology of terms and definitions. Buildings & Cities, 1(1). 10.5334/bc.66
- 24Mamo Fufa, S., Dahl Schlanbusch, R., Sørnes, K., Inman, M. R., & Andresen, I. (2016). A Norwegian ZEB definition guideline. Sintef Byggforsk.
- 25Miller, D., & Dinan, W. (2015).
Think tanks, ‘merchants of doubt’ and the ‘corporate capture’ of sustainable development . In Hansen, A., & Cox, R. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of environment and communication (pp. 86–99). Routledge. - 26Nykamp, H. (2017). A transition to green buildings in Norway. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 24(September), 83–93. 10.1016/j.eist.2016.10.006
- 27Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury.
- 28Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751–760. 10.1093/scipol/scs093
- 29Pan, W. (2014). System boundaries of zero carbon buildings. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 37(September), 424–434. 10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.015
- 30Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. 10.1007/BF01405730
- 31Shove, E. (2010). Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and Planning A, 42(6), 1273–1285. 10.1068/a42282
- 32Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1996). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 111–134. 10.1177/00027649921955326
- 33Taveres-Cachat, E., Grynning, S., Thomsen, J., & Selkowitz, S. (2019). Responsive building envelope concepts in zero emission neighborhoods and smart cities—A roadmap to implementation. Building and Environment, 149(February), 446–457. 10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.12.045
- 34van Soest, D. P., & Bulte, E. H. (2001). Does the energy-efficiency paradox exist? Technological progress and uncertainty. Environmental and Resource Economics, 18(1), 101–112. 10.1023/A:1011112406964
- 35Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
- 36Westerhoff, L. M. (2016). Emerging narratives of a sustainable urban neighbourhood: The case of Vancouver’s Olympic Village. Articulo—Journal of Urban Research,
14 . 10.4000/articulo.2974 - 37White, S., & Featherstone, B. (2005). Communicating misunderstandings: Multi-agency work as social practice. Child & Family Social Work, 10(3), 207–216. 10.1111/j.1365-2206.2005.00372.x
- 38Woods, R., Baer, D., Berker, T., & Bø, L. A. (2019). ZEN living labs definition, ideas and examples. SINTEF akademisk forlag.
https://ntnuopen.ntnu.no/ntnu-xmlui/handle/11250/2600252 - 39Woods, R., & Berker, T. (2021).
Norwegian pilots: Navigating the technological logic of sustainable architecture . In Stender, M., Bech-Danielson, C., & Landsverk Hagen, A. (Eds.), Architectural anthropology. Exploring lived space (pp. 237–249). Routledge. - 40Woods, R., & Berker, T. (2022). Homelife in a Norwegian forest: A rural approach to the sustainable transition. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 18(1), 636–650. 10.1080/15487733.2022.2108254